| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:37:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Congratulations, you've just completely discouraged me from pursuing |
| 5 |
> this any further. I don't have the time or the resources to solve all |
| 6 |
> the problems in the world, especially if I don't give a damn about |
| 7 |
> them. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Its not that I don't want a solution here, but this has been something |
| 10 |
that has long bothered me, sufficient I want to eventually see this |
| 11 |
turn into a future-EAPI proposal. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think if I was to say there is something we can do today for this, |
| 14 |
I'd use a non-use variable to regulate it, expressly so it *cant* be |
| 15 |
used in SRC_URI or DEPEND |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
perl-module.eclass has such a feature already, if an end user specifies |
| 18 |
DIST_TEST_OVERRIDE="do parallel network", certain tests stop being |
| 19 |
disabled ( though doing this globally will turn on a lot more tests |
| 20 |
that are currently disabled for non-network related reasons, and force |
| 21 |
parallelism where its not warranted, so said feature is still a poor |
| 22 |
model to adopt verbatim in a global way ) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But trying to decide on a shared ENV var that has default mechanics and |
| 25 |
default implications and is enforced by portage quickly gets into |
| 26 |
GLEP/EAPI territory anyway. |
Archives